spring_mountain_high
New member
back on topic, i love the idea of ski trains, but if they can't make the denver-winter park ski train work, i don't think it would work anywhere...that is one awesome ride too
-
Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!
You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!
Portland to Conway Ski Trains?
- Thread starter bobbutts
- Start date
BenedictGomez
Well-known member
No.
A) AMTRAK isnt freight, it's passenger travel
B) I already stated that the train makes sense in the NE cooridor
Disagree; - again, specifically on the Washington DC to Boston through NYC route. IIRC, that route pulls down something like a few hundred million dollars in profit per year. It absolutely would be profitable even after maintenance, labor, and all track costs and other operating expenses, etc.. If you could boot the Unions in a restructuring agreement and pay realistic benefits, which admittedly probably isnt realistic given the route goes through some of the most Union-dependent government states in America (DC, MD, NJ, NY, MA), it would be even more profitable. AMTRAK's labor costs are through the roof, not from the salaries, but from the bennies. I'm sure you could squeeze out a TON of efficiency improvements if it was completely privately run as well. Remember that famous story a few years ago that the AMTRAK snack bar was losing close to $100 MILLION per year? :-o Yeah, that aint happening if it sinks or swims on private $$$.
SIKSKIER
New member
I find it hard to believe that in this current world of having the convience of your car at your disposal,that very many people would opt for being at the mercy of getting around without it after their arrival by train.I think there are very few people today that dont mind being confined to one place or else have to rent a car or other public transportation to explore outside a walking or trolley served village.I include myself.
I must be in the minority. When I travel, I prefer going to locations where I don't need a car.
BenedictGomez
Well-known member
All inclusive resorts? Major cities?
Both.
One of my favorite things about the AZ summit at Sugarloaf is not needing a car for all three days and getting around perfectly fine on the shuttle or walking.
Bostonian
Well-known member
I don't want to burst anyone's bubble but a ski train is not viable. Working in the transit biz, let's just say $60M is way too little for three states to do rail upgrades and installation. For the Fitchburg upgrades taking place, that is costing over $225M dollars. This does include new stations, double tracking, bridge repairs and etc... Furthermore, the ridership probably would not sustain the line as driving is economically cheaper for people looking to head north.
BenedictGomez
Well-known member
Same for NYC to Vermont. When I lived in Manhattan I looked into taking the train to ski, I thought it might be a cool experience taking it to Essex Junction or Saint Albans and not driving. That idea soon changed when I realized the AMTRAK train made a 6 hour drive on $50 gas about a 10 hour trip costing more than twice as much money. Yuck.
Bostonian
Well-known member
Part of the problem is the route and the track infrastructure and track usage rights. Would I love a train from Boston to North Conway? Yes! But the reality is that the costs are prohibitive, the ridership couldn't sustain it and freight usage I am sure would interfere with it. We need rail systems similar to to Europe but, due to finance, politics and community protests - it isn't gonna happen any time soon.
SIKSKIER
New member
Dont necessarily think your in the minority per say,I'm saying in the northeast I think most skiers want to be able to move about and come and go at their will without being tied to another means of transportation.
If I were within an hour's distance of decent skiing, I'd prefer to drive. Anything significantly over that and I would substantially prefer a train (or even a bus).
Smellytele
Well-known member
The issue I have is that when I travel on a vacation I am not doing it alone but either with friends or family. A train becomes more and more expensive with the more I travel with. A car on the other hand becomes cheaper with the more I travel with. If going alone I might consider it but that is almost never. Economy of scale -while it would be beneficial if a train was full for the train company it isn't for the individuals unless they are always full.
Newpylong
Well-known member
Ridiculous to expect a money making operation, why do you think the freight railroads ditched passenger?
BenedictGomez
Well-known member
No, it's ridiculous to keep money losing routes IN operation.
To the tune of hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars per year (literally).
VTKilarney
Well-known member
I can appreciate losing money on infrastructure that has an overall greater economic benefit. I doubt, though, that a ski train to North Conway would provide such a benefit. At least the funding is supposedly private.
But take the Downeaster, for example. Is there really a need to maintain the passenger operation AND the interstate highway that parallels it? Yes, that stretch of highway is extremely busy on a summer weekend, but as a general proposition it is not overly used. The train also assumes that you could not add more buses on the route. I wonder if any buses were eliminated as a result of the train? I am sure that some people would ride the train but not a bus, but for those few people it seems to be a huge investment.
But take the Downeaster, for example. Is there really a need to maintain the passenger operation AND the interstate highway that parallels it? Yes, that stretch of highway is extremely busy on a summer weekend, but as a general proposition it is not overly used. The train also assumes that you could not add more buses on the route. I wonder if any buses were eliminated as a result of the train? I am sure that some people would ride the train but not a bus, but for those few people it seems to be a huge investment.
Newpylong
Well-known member
How Jeffersonian.
We sped $150 billion a year on the US highway system - only a portion of which is recouped via tolls and gas tax. Do you drive? We don't close "non profitable" roads.
Pick your poison. Transportation has to be subsidized to a degree or no one could use it because it would cost too much.
Last edited:
Newpylong
Well-known member
Adding buses to I-95 won't help because they just sit in traffic. That's why the Downeasters are full coming into North Station. People will pay a little more for a ticket than sit in traffic. The HOV is only 3 miles long coming into Boston on 93.
bobbutts
New member
We went all in with cars/roads and allowed the rail infrastructure to crumble. I feel like it may be that the rail ship sailed a long time ago. Our rail service is now so poor that people familiar with it don't like it. I took the Acela and also Standard Amtrak to NJ a few times and it was slow, uncomfortable, bad service, overpriced. The drive is a pain, but it still beats Amtrak. I've been to EU a few times and used and loved the rail service there, but I don't really see how the USA can get from where we are now to having a great rail system.
VTKilarney
Well-known member
That may be convenient for the people who ride Amtrak from Maine into Boston, but my concern was whether or not the millions of dollars spent on that service results in an equal or greater economic benefit. I'm not convinced that it does.
VTKilarney
Well-known member
I think you have hit the nail on the head. Our biggest problem with growing rail ridership is that we have a whole freaking infrastructure that was built around the automobile. Even if rail is an attractive option to get from point A to point B, except for major cities you are pretty much stranded unless you have access to a car upon arrival.
In Europe, we have taken the train on numerous occasions to smaller towns and villages. We've never felt the need for a car upon arrival. This is not to say that Europe has no sprawl. It's just that in Europe the situation is much more conducive to train travel.
Similar threads
